index3.html and index2.html both fail in IE7 but only index2.html fails in IE6. I really doubt this has anything to do with how jQuery applies the opacity in IE but more to do with IE and its filter.
-- Brandon Aaron On 12/7/06, Kelvin Luck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon Aaron wrote: > > So in my little bit of testing IE7 shows that the filter is applied > > because the text has the smoothing removed. Also, it only works for me > > (IE6 and 7) by removing position: relative; and it doesn't matter if > > it has a width or not. Position absolute made it fail also. > > > > I ran into some weird CSS issues just yesterday with position relative > > in IE. I'll go through some more testing ... > > > > Thanks for taking a look :) > > Are you sure it doesn't matter if you have width or not? The following > both work OK for me (IE 6, WinXP): > > http://kelvinluck.com/assets/jquery/fadeBug/index3.html (position, no width) > > http://kelvinluck.com/assets/jquery/fadeBug/index4.html (width but no > position) > > It is only this one that fails: > > http://kelvinluck.com/assets/jquery/fadeBug/index2.html (position and > width). > > I guess the question is - is it a problem with IEs internal rendering of > the opacity or is the problem in how jQuery is setting the opacity? > > Cheers, > > Kelvin :) > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
